Nuclear power phase-out

A 2019 study of the impacts of the German and Japan closures concludes that by continuing to operate their nuclear plants "these two countries could have prevented 28,000 air pollution-induced deaths and 2400 Mt CO2 emissions between 2011 and 2017.

By sharply reducing nuclear instead of coal and gas after Fukushima, both countries lost the chance to prevent very large amounts of air pollution-induced deaths and CO2 emissions".

[6] Several countries formerly opposed to opening nuclear programs or planning phaseouts have reversed course in recent years due to climate concerns and energy independence including Belgium,[7] the Philippines,[8] Greece,[9] Sweden[10] and South Korea.

Major anti-nuclear power groups include Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and Sortir du nucléaire (France).

[27][28] Belgium's nuclear phase-out legislation was agreed in July 1999 by the Liberals (VLD and MR), the Socialists (SP.A and PS) and the Greens party (Groen!

[33] Although intermediate deadlines have been missed or pushed back, on 30 March 2018 the Belgian Council of Ministers confirmed the 2025 phase-out date and stated draft legislation would be brought forward later in the year.

The German government, declaring climate protection as a key policy issue, announced a carbon dioxide reduction target by the year 2005 compared to 1990 of 25%.

[48][failed verification] In 2011, Deutsche Bank analysts concluded that "the global impact of the Fukushima accident is a fundamental shift in public perception with regard to how a nation prioritizes and values its population's health, safety, security, and natural environment when determining its current and future energy pathways".

[56] A 2016 study shows that during the nuclear phaseout, the security of electricity supply in Germany stayed at the same high level compared to other European countries and even improved in 2014.

Hearings are taking place at the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington, DC and Vattenfall is claiming almost €4.7 billion in damages.

Germany's network regulator (part of the Economy Ministry), could decide that they are critical to the security of power supply (both electricity and nuclear transmutation) and allow them to run for longer.

[82] In 2018, the International Energy Agency has warned that Switzerland's phased withdrawal from nuclear power presents challenges for maintaining its electricity security.

They caution that Switzerland will be increasingly relying on imports from its European neighbours to meet electricity demand, especially during the winter months when low water levels impact production from hydro plants.

[85] In August 2024, the Federal Council, led by Energy Minister Albert Rösti, proposed lifting the nuclear power plant construction ban that had been in place since 2017.

The plan called for first one, then ultimately four plants to be built at the site, but it was dropped after strong opposition from environmental groups, and Ireland has remained without nuclear power since.

In December 2021, the Fourth Rutte cabinet stated that it wants to prepare for the construction of two new nuclear power plants to reduce CO2 emissions and meet the European Union goals for responding to climate change.

[118] As of August 2011[update], the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant was leaking low levels of radioactivity and areas surrounding it could remain uninhabitable for decades.

[125][126] Duke Energy's Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant in Florida closed, as it could not recover the costs needed to fix its containment building.

Later into the administrative period, the Moon Jae-in government and its nuclear phase-out policy is facing heavier criticism than before, from both the opposing parties as well as general public due to lack of realistic alternative, consequential increase in electricity price, negative effects on the related industries, public consensus of needs to reduce carbon footprint and the decrease of popularity due to other political and economic failures.

[142] Proponents cite scientific studies affirming the consensus that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution,[143] in contrast to the chief dispatchable alternative of fossil fuel.

[159] The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject, since there are diverging views on the topic, and multi-billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source.

[160] In Eastern Europe, a number of long-established projects are struggling to find finance, notably Belene in Bulgaria and the additional reactors at Cernavoda in Romania, and some potential backers have pulled out.

[164] The routine health risks from nuclear fission power are very small relative to those associated with coal, oil, gas, solar, biomass, wind and hydroelectric.

[165] However, there is a "catastrophic risk" potential if containment fails,[166] which in nuclear reactors can be brought about by over-heated fuels melting and releasing large quantities of fission products into the environment.

Even so, in comparing the fatalities for major accidents alone in the energy sector, it is still found that the risks associated with nuclear power are extremely small relative to those associated with coal, oil, gas and hydroelectric.

[167] The 1979 Three Mile Island accident and 1986 Chernobyl disaster, along with high construction costs, ended the rapid growth of global nuclear power capacity.

[166] A further disastrous release of radioactive materials followed the 2011 Japanese tsunami which damaged the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in hydrogen gas explosions and partial meltdowns classified as a Level 7 event.

Already more lives might have been lost just in Germany because of air pollution from coal power than from all of the world’s nuclear accidents to date, Fukushima and Chernobyl included.

[180][181] To date, there have been five serious accidents (core damage) in the world since 1970 (one at Three Mile Island in 1979; one at Chernobyl in 1986; and three at Fukushima-Daiichi in 2011), corresponding to the beginning of the operation of generation II reactors.

In the future this could "lead to a majority of our energy coming from decentralized solar panels and wind turbines scattered across the country" rather than large power plants.